Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi771; 1974RLR335
H. L. Anand, J.(1) The question that arises in this appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the High Court Act') is as to its maintainability either under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act or under Section 10 of the High Court Act or under clause 10 of the letters Patent. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances : (2) The appellant had entered into a contract with the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, New Delhi for handling/transporting work at Central Storage Depot, Shahjahanpur. The contract contained an arbitration clause and pursuant to certain disputes that arose between the parties, the same were referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the contract who, by an Award made on December 6, 1966 awarded a sum of Rs. 78.212.20 in favor of the appellant. On the same day, the Arbitrator issued a notice to the appellant and the Union of India, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-25-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1974
Reported in : 1975RLR12
P.S. Safeer, J.(1) This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration, under section 27(a) read with section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereafter called 'the Act'). (2) The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the meaning of section 3(b) of the Act and that had been done on the 23rd of February, 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs bad been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged :- 'THATthe accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-11-1974
Reported in : AIR1975Delhi210; ILR1975Delhi345
Prithvi Raj, J. (1) This Regular First Appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, (herein to be called 'the Act') has been filed against the judgment dated 26th March, 1974, passed by a learned Single Judge passing final decree for redemption of the suit property in favor of the respondents.(2) Relevant facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under. One Bakshi Mohan Lal Sason, husban of Sarswati Devi, was the owner of property bearing No. 13, Keeling Road, New Delhi. Mohan Lal in his life time created a mortgage in respect of this property in favor of the appellant by deed dated May 31, 1966 in lieu of the sum of Rs. 70,000 that he borrowed from him. The deceased had earlier created two mortgages against the property in favor of two other persons, namely, Smt. Lajya Wati and Malwa Dcvi with which mortgages we arc not concerned in this appeal. Failing to get the property redeemed because of the stand of the appellant that the (Mohan Lal Sason) having not paid t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-1974
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1075
ORDERP.S. Safeer, J.1. This petition has arisen out of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector. Delhi Administration, under Section 27(a) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940(hereafter called 'the Act').2. The Drugs Inspector stated in the complaint that he had recovered Items 1 to 23 mentioned in the recovery memo which were drugs within the mean-ins of Section 3(b) of the Act and that had been on the 23rd of February. 1972. The Drugs were recovered from the premises of the petitioner. Certain bills and cash-memos were also recovered which disclosed the sources from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. A recovery memo was prepared in respect thereof. The Drugs Inspector made inquiries from the firms from which the drugs had been purchased by the petitioner. In paragraph 6 the complaint alleged:That the accused had no license to sell, stock and exhibit for sale and distribute drugs at his premises mentioned above and that he is not a Register...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi385b; 1974RLR470
V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) What are the rights and remedies of an owner of immovable property against an unauthorised occupant and his licensee in respect of the property This question arises for consideration in this appeal on the following facts. (2) Mrs. Chenoy, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises at 20, Sunder Nagar, the ground floor of which was let out to Dr. Suraj Prakash at Rs. 1000 per month who was alleged to have had consulting medical practice on the premises. (3) While a suit by the landlady against Dr. Suraj Prakash for eviction was pending before the Rent Controller, Dr. Suraj Prakash died. The Appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives, but the Rent Controller held that the proceedings for eviction before him abated on the death of the tenant inasmuch as the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit before the eviction proceedings were filed. Dr. Suraj Prakash had become only a statutory tenant. thereforee, the protection of the Delhi Ren...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-26-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi491
T.V.R. Tatachari, C.J. (1) Two questions have been referred by H. L. Anand J. for the opinion of this Full Bench. They are: (1)Whether the Court has power to interfere in the plaintiff's valuation of relief for the purpose of court-fee under Section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act; and (2)If so, (A)when would such interference be justified, and (B)what should be the criterion for the re-determination of the value (2) The reference came to be made in the following circumstances. Sudershan Kumar Kalra, Krishan Lal Kalra and Hans Raj Kalra are real brothers. Sudershan Kumar Kalra filed a suit originally in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, in December, 1968. He subsequently died and his wife and five children were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit has since been transferred to the original side of this Court and re-numbered as Suit No. 35 of 1971. The defendants in the suit are (1) Kishan Lal Kalra (2) Hans Raj Kalra, (3) Jagmohan Kalra, (4) Kishan Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-01-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi81
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) These two Civil Petitions, No 473-D of 1963 and 15-D of 1966, can be disposed of by a common judgment as the main points for determination are the same in both the cases, though the petitioners and the lands involved are different. (2) In Civil Writ Petition No. 473-D of 1963, the petitioners are Raj Kumar and Om Prakash. The respondents are (1) the Union of India; (2) the Chief Commissioner, Delhi; (3) the Delhi Administration ; and (4) the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi. The petitioners are stated to be owners .in equal shares of a plot of land measuring about 1157 square yards and bearing khasra Nos. 1274/ 191/2/1 and 201, situate in village Kilkori within the Union Territory of Delhi, having purchased the same under a registered deed of sale, dated February 16, 1959. On November 13, 1959, the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, issued a Notification No. F. 15(iii)/ 59-LSG under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, stating that the land, measuring 34070 ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-12-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi219
T.V.R. Tatachari, J.(1) These three Civil Revision Petitions, Nos. 239, 240. and 241 of 1973, can be disposed of by a common judgment.(2) The petitioners in the three Revision Petitions are (1) Bindra Watch Company, (2) Tara Singh and another, and (3) Dass and Company respectively. The respondents in all the three Revision Petitions are the same, viz. (1) Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board and (2) Jathedar Santokh Singh. (3) The facts which have given rise to these Revision Petitions are as follows. Each of the petitioners was a tenant of a separate premises (shop) belonging to the Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (now Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Board). The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee) through the second respondent filed on November 21, 1968, three applications against the three petitioners respectively under Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of the petitioners from their respective premises. Even before the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-01-1974
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi692
Jagjit Singh, J. (1) This writ petition is on behalf of Shri Swarandip Singh Ratra, a member of the Friends Central Government Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. (to be hereinafter reffered to as 'the Society'.)(2) The main relief claimed by the petitioner is that a notice dated March 6, 1974 issued in respect of elections to the managing committee of the Society should be quashed. He also wants directions to be issued to the Register of the co-operative Societies (respondent No. 1) to call an annual general meeting of the Society under section 29 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and to perform his functions under section 32 of the said Act for supersession of the present managing committee of the society.(3) It may be stated that the Society was registered on March 27, 1976 under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, as it then applied to the Union territory of Delhi. On the coming into force of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter...
Tag this Judgment!